Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Jansen

[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Jansen, 124 Ohio St.3d 272, 2010-Ohio-133.]

CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. JANSEN ET AL.

[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Jansen, 124 Ohio St.3d 272, 2010-Ohio-133.]

Unauthorized practice of law — Consent decree accepted — Injunction issued.

(No. 2009-1663 ⎯ Submitted September 30, 2009 ⎯ Decided January 26, 2010.)

ON FINAL REPORT by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law of the

Supreme Court, No. UPL 06-07.

__________________

{¶ 1} Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VII(5b), the Board on the Unauthorized

Practice of Law has recommended our approval of a consent decree proposed by

relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, and respondents, Stuart Jansen and American

Mediation & Alternative Resolutions (“AMAR”). We accept the board’s

recommendation and approve the proposed consent decree submitted by the

parties, as follows:

{¶ 2} “A. WHEREAS, the Relator is a bar association whose members

include attorneys practicing law in Hamilton County, Ohio; and

{¶ 3} “B. WHEREAS, the Relator, through its Unauthorized Practice of

Law Committee, is authorized, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VII, to investigate and file

complaints with the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of

Law of the Supreme Court of Ohio regarding claims of the unauthorized practice

of law; and

{¶ 4} “C. WHEREAS, Jansen is a resident of Hamilton County, Ohio

and is the Managing Director of the Cincinnati, Ohio office of AMAR, an

unincorporated association doing business in Hamilton County, Ohio; and

{¶ 5} “D. WHEREAS, AMAR and its local representatives, including

Jansen, offer to the general public to use, as a neutral party, both mediation and

nonbinding arbitration to resolve disputes between adverse parties; and

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 6} “E. WHEREAS, in late 2004 or early 2005 Ronald J. Solomon,

D.D.S., Inc. (‘Solomon’) retained the services of Karen Comisar Prescott

(‘Prescott’), an Ohio attorney located in Hamilton County, to assist him in the

collection of a delinquent account in the principal amount of $2,411.82 owed by

one of Solomon’s patients, Gina Baer (‘Baer’); and

{¶ 7} “F. WHEREAS, after Prescott contacted Baer in an attempt to

collect the debt, Baer engaged the services of the Respondents and asked them to

respond to Prescott’s communication; and

{¶ 8} “G. WHEREAS, on January 31, 2005, at Jansen’s request, Baer

executed a Limited Power of Attorney, a copy of which is attached to the

Complaint which the Relator filed in this proceeding on August 17, 2006 (the

‘Complaint’) as Exhibit A, pursuant to which Baer appointed AMAR as her

attorney-in-fact to ‘mediate creditors’ claim(s) and to effect a reasonable

settlement with * * * Ronald J. Solomon, [D.D.S.]’; Jansen also executed the

Limited Power of Attorney on behalf of AMAR; and

{¶ 9} “H. WHEREAS, on February 1, 2005 Jansen sent a letter to

Prescott, a copy of which is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit B, in which he

offered on behalf of Baer to settle Solomon’s $2,411.82 claim for a lump sum

payment, in cash, of $1,300 based on: (1) Baer’s apparent dissatisfaction with the

professional services rendered by Solomon; (2) allegedly false statements made

by Solomon’s office personnel concerning the availability to Baer of insurance

coverage for the services rendered; and (3) Baer’s distressed financial condition;

and

{¶ 10} “I. WHEREAS, since February 1, 2005 Jansen, on behalf of other

clients of the Respondents, also has sent to other creditors or their representatives

at least seven similar letters in which Jansen raised possible defenses or mitigation

to the validity or the amount, or both, of the creditor’s claim and, on that basis,

2

January Term, 2010

has offered on behalf of the Respondents’ client to settle the claim for less than

the full amount; and

{¶ 11} “J. WHEREAS, the Relator contends, and the Respondents agree,

that the letters and related communications described above constitute the

unauthorized practice of law by the Respondents under Gov.Bar R. VII; and

{¶ 12} “K. WHEREAS, in order to eliminate the need for contentious,

costly and time-consuming litigation of their dispute, the outcome of which is

uncertain, and to amicably settle their disagreements and differences, the Relator

and the Respondents have agreed to enter into this Stipulation and Agreed Order;

and

{¶ 13} “L. WHEREAS, Relator and Respondents hereby waive notice of

and a hearing before the Board of Commissioners.

{¶ 14} “NOW, THEREFORE, it hereby is agreed, decreed and ordered

that:

{¶ 15} “1. The Respondents permanently shall cease and desist from

sending on behalf of any client of the Respondents located in the State of Ohio

any correspondence, email message, memorandum or any other written or oral

communication to any creditor of such client which communication disputes or

otherwise calls into question the validity or amount of the creditor’s claim against

such client (except only to the extent any such creditor has or may have

incorrectly computed the amount of its claim then due).

{¶ 16} “2. The Respondents shall not otherwise ‘represent debtors in Ohio

by advising, counseling or negotiating resolution of their debts with creditors or

creditors’ counsel’ (per Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Kolodner (2004), 103 Ohio

St.[3d] 504, 2004-Ohio-5581, [817 N.E.2d 25]) and shall not otherwise engage in

the unauthorized practice of law.

{¶ 17} “3. The Relator hereby withdraws its demand for civil penalties

against the Respondents for the reasons that: the Respondents have fully

3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

cooperated with the Relator with respect to its investigation; the number of

occasions on which the Relator claims the Respondents engaged in the

unauthorized practice of law is small (eight); the violations were not flagrant; and

it does not appear that any thrid [sic, third] parties suffered significant harm as the

result of the Respondents’ activities. The Relator also shall not seek

reimbursement from the Respondents for the Relator’s legal fees or expenses

incurred in connection with this proceeding, provided the Respondents comply

and remain in compliance with the terms hereof.

{¶ 18} “4. The Relator expressly reserves all of its rights and remedies in

connection with any violation hereof by the Respondents.”

{¶ 19} Costs are taxed to respondents.

So ordered.

MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR,

O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur.

__________________

Thompson Hine, L.L.P., and Louis F. Solimine, for relator.

Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter Co., L.P.A., and Geoffrey Stern, for

respondents.

________________________

4